Fable 2 - Preview @ ShackNews

Of course, the game's moral choices extend beyond random acts of domestic violence and kleptomania. As Fable 2 kicks off and players are mere children, they will be faced with a number of changes said to greatly affect the future of the its cities.

One early quest gives players the option of turning over arrest warrants to the authorities or to the criminal underground. Others allow them to expose a secret love, help a drunk get into a drinking program, or choose to protect a dude's livestock or just destroy it.

In addition to the surrounding environment, a player's tendency towards good or evil affects their appearance and the way that villagers deal with them.

That means there's a lot of incentive to replay the game and take a different approach—which is good, since a representative from developer Lionhead told me that you can "blaze through" the single-player game in about 12 hours.

While exploring the game's open-world—filled with hoppable fences and broad fields—a glittering "bread crumb" trail appears to guide player along to their next objective. Lionhead has not yet decided if the trail can be disabled, but it's currently considering the option.

I don't consider good/evil options as an incentive to replay a game. I did that with the first KOTOR and realized after a while that I had spent enough time on that game already (don't get me wrong, it was marvelous the first time, but I don't have time to play such a long game twice).

Originally Posted by Santos
Morbid curiosity here: is anyone on here looking foreword to this game?

If it comes out for the PC and isn't more dumbed down and "consolish" than Fable:tLC, then yes. Fable had a unique style that I'd quite enjoy experiencing again, despite being very much in the opposite direction from my usual RPG preferences.

I also agree good/evil options do not equate to replay value to me whatsoever. I've tried playing evil characters in games - I just don't enjoy it, at least when I'm given the option of being good or a more complex in-between.

Another short offering by Lionhead. No way I am paying 60 bucks for 12 hours of content. I hope they didn't fill it with half-realized gimmicks and easy as pie combat, which marred the first one. I felt I got my money's worth buying it for $15 off XBox Live, but not much more.

I am kind of looking forward to it, because its different, but I will be renting it only.

Edit: My gosh, I actually read the whole preview and I think that may be the worst AI I have ever read described.

Fable had the evil/good option too, along with a lot of apparent "choices" that a player could decide to follow up on. For example, you could sleep with barmaids, own houses, and so on.

These choices were fine, but in the end the point was - WHY? There was absolutely no point to own a house. Sure your character's visage changed as you progressively sunk into evil-dom, but there was very little incentive to try any of these options because overall the game play and story remained unchanged.

For example, to make the evil/good schism effective and to provide an incentive for players to explore both, a game should restrict certain quests/NPCs/story lines/equipment to be limited by your good (or evil) stat.

Not evil? Nope, can't do this quest.

Not good? Nope, can't wield this weapon.

Sitting on the fence? Nope, can't talk to this NPC or use this merchant.

Originally Posted by Angelspit
I don't consider good/evil options as an incentive to replay a game. I did that with the first KOTOR and realized after a while that I had spent enough time on that game already (don't get me wrong, it was marvelous the first time, but I don't have time to play such a long game twice).

I don't either, although Kotor provided a different enough experience to make it worth playing a second time. Most games can't do this though.

Originally Posted by martink
Fable had the evil/good option too, along with a lot of apparent "choices" that a player could decide to follow up on. For example, you could sleep with barmaids, own houses, and so on.

These choices were fine, but in the end the point was - WHY? There was absolutely no point to own a house. Sure your character's visage changed as you progressively sunk into evil-dom, but there was very little incentive to try any of these options because overall the game play and story remained unchanged.

For example, to make the evil/good schism effective and to provide an incentive for players to explore both, a game should restrict certain quests/NPCs/story lines/equipment to be limited by your good (or evil) stat.

Not evil? Nope, can't do this quest.

Not good? Nope, can't wield this weapon.

Sitting on the fence? Nope, can't talk to this NPC or use this merchant.

I agree completely - KOTOR2 was guilty of this to some extent too,
allowing you to use dark side powers with only a minor FP penalty (and no dark side points!) In the Star Wars d20 game (on which it appears to be based) - any use of a dark side power is a no-no, unless you wish to fall to the dark side (bwhahaha etc etc) *those* are consequences - not the cosmetic fluff that they offer as good/evil choices. If I recall correctly Jedi Knight forced you to choose a path at some point…But for Kotor I guess everyone wanted force lightning (I eventually ended up toasting everthing with lightnig bolts, but I was a paragon of light side virtue…yeah right)

I appreciated the first game for what it offered. It was a very stylistic, lighthearted rpg romp that was fun to play. I felt the good/evil system was unbalanced - at least for my moral code. I would do things that I considered evil, without resorting to complete destruction and murder, and yet somehow on every playthrough I ended up with angelic features.

So,.. yeah, the whole good/evil feature is pretty much wasted on me. I'll make fun of Molyneux as much as the next guy - he deserves it. But if the game delivers as much enjoyment as the first, then yeah, I'll probably play it….. eventually.

— ..& so they take the fiction all out of the Jabberwock & I recognize & accept him as a fact. - Mark Twain, May 30, 1880